Suchergebnisse

Sexuality is often understood to be uniquely private and intimate--something that can and should be protected from capitalism's influence. This book argues, in contrast, that the histories of capitalism and sexuality are closely intertwined. Integral to this story has been the illusion that economic and sexual practices are tied to fundamentally different realms. Focusing on the history of sex work in Britain, the book shows that capitalism has long needed the construction of artificial boundaries around sex and work in order to extract profit from sexual labor, both paid and unpaid.

What is the relationship between capitalism and sexuality, and why are they so often assumed to be antithetical? The text interrogates these questions by bringing together insights from two fields that have often overlooked each other, international political economy and queer theory.

What is the relationship between capitalism and sexuality, and why are they so often assumed to be antithetical? The text interrogates these questions by bringing together insights from two fields that have often overlooked each other, international political economy and queer theory.

This article engages with debates about the trajectory of contemporary European political economies, emphasising in particular the need to map processes of policy change over time (by placing contemporary developments in historical perspective) and space (by considering a variety of policy areas). The article then explores these issues with respect to the Irish case. Placing more recent developments within historical perspective, it argues that the trajectory of the Irish state is not best characterised in terms of a shift from one state form (the 'activist state') to another ('the competition state'). Rather, the path of Irish economic and social policy has been both highly complex and (at times) contradictory, so that change is best characterised in terms of the ebb and flow of tendencies and counter-tendencies rather than in terms of a shift between state forms.

This book provides a distinctive multi-disciplinary contribution to debates about global justice and global ethics addresses issues including human rights, the environment, health, labour, peace-building and political participation, and sexuality.

There is something queer (by which we mean strange) going on in the scholarly practice of political science. Why are political science scholars continuing to disregard issues of gender and sexuality-and in particular queer theory-in their lecture theatres, seminar rooms, textbooks, and journal articles? Such everyday issues around common human experience are considered by other social scientists to be central to the practice and theory of social relations. In this article we discuss how these commonplace issues are being written out of (or, more accurately, have never been written in to) contemporary political science. First, we present and discuss our findings on citation practice in order to evidence the queerness of what does and does not get cited in political science scholarship. We then go on to critique this practice before suggesting a broader agenda for the analysis of the political based on a queer theoretical approach. Adapted from the source document.

Research Highlights and AbstractThe study of gender, sexuality—and, in particular, queer theory—is central to the social sciences and humanities. Our analysis of citation practices shows that queer theorist Judith Butler is one of the most cited social theorists of all time. Yet political science remains distinctly untroubled by queer theory, and gender and sexuality are frequently treated as marginal (not central) concerns. We argue that queer theory has much to offer political science, not only by highlighting the importance of sexuality and the body but also in analysing 'power' and in politicising 'the political' itself. We suggest that the 'queering' of political science is long overdue, not least through politicising processes of knowledge-production in the discipline.There is something queer (by which we mean strange) going on in the scholarly practice of political science. Why are political science scholars continuing to disregard issues of gender and sexuality—and in particular queer theory—in their lecture theatres, seminar rooms, textbooks, and journal articles? Such everyday issues around common human experience are considered by other social scientists to be central to the practice and theory of social relations. In this article we discuss how these commonplace issues are being written out of (or, more accurately, have never been written in to) contemporary political science. First, we present and discuss our findings on citation practice in order to evidence the queerness of what does and does not get cited in political science scholarship. We then go on to critique this practice before suggesting a broader agenda for the analysis of the political based on a queer theoretical approach.

There is something queer (by which we mean strange) going on in the scholarly practice of political science. Why are political science scholars continuing to disregard issues of gender and sexuality – and in particular queer theory – in their lecture theatres, seminar rooms, textbooks, and journal articles? Such everyday issues around common human experience are considered by other social scientists to be central to the practice and theory of social relations. In this article we discuss how these commonplace issues are being written out of (or, more accurately, have never been written in to) contemporary political science. First, we present and discuss our findings on citation practice in order to evidence the queerness of what does and does not get cited in political science scholarship. We then go on to critique this practice before suggesting a broader agenda for the analysis of the political based on a queer theoretical approach.

This article supports growing calls to 'take small states seriously' in the international political economy but questions prevailing interpretations that 'smallness' entails inherent qualities that create unique constraints on, and opportunities for, small states. Instead, we argue that discourses surrounding the 'inherent vulnerability' of small states, especially developing and less-developed states, may produce the very outcomes that are attributed to state size itself. By presenting small states as a 'problem' to be 'solved', vulnerability discourses divert attention away from the existence of unequal power structures that, far from being the 'natural' result of smallness, are in fact contingent and politically contested. The article then explores these themes empirically through discussion of small developing and less-developed states in the Commonwealth and the World Trade Organisation (WTO), considering in particular how smallness has variously been articulated in terms of what small states either cannot or will not do.